Give YOUR Movie review

OK, that sounds more or less like a U.S. comedy ...

Last night I watched
Emma with Gwyneth Paltrow

I would give it a 7.5, certainly worth watching for an Austen fan. It is true to the Austen story in many particulars, but not all. The characters of Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill are not developed as they ought to be, and many of the delightful maneuvers Frank and Emma make as they flirt and conspire are not shown. The movie suffers for this, for not bringing forth more of the story in the book. The mannerisms and machinations of Mrs Elliot are well done, but she can't go as far in the movie as she does in the book because of the way the Fairfax character is mishandled in the film.

Still, very watchable if you're fond of Jane Austen.

It focuses
 
The Conspirator (2010)

I was very happy to learn that Netflix had stuck this movie on their instant movie lineup, and watched it immediately after finding it. This was my third time to watch it, and I think I liked it more this time. Even though the movie was directed by Robert Redford, I love how the movie leaves this question unanswered: was Mary Surratt guilty of conspiring to kill Abraham Lincoln, or was she innocent of knowledge of the plan? While the movie tends to lean towards the idea that she wasn't necessarily guilty because of the trial jury's desire to find someone to blame for Lincoln's death, it leaves the question rather unanswered.

The movie has some mild profanity, but what is probably the most jarring is the violence. The movie opens with bodies strewn across a battlefield, and one man sustains a bloody wound (he survives). A man is stabbed several times, onscreen, though we don't see the actual penetration or blood; Lincoln is obviously shot, and he slumps forward though we see no blood spray/spatter and the gore is not there. If you see the movie, I will warn you: the camera remains focused on the conspirators (at the end) when they hang; so this can be jarring if you arent' expecting it. But, if you're a Civil War buff, or like historical pieces, I recommend this movie. It's relatively clean for the subject that it contains.
 
Thanks for this review! I had wondered if that movie was really any good when it came out in cinemas. I may get it through Netflix now, too.
 
inkspot said:
OK, that sounds more or less like a U.S. comedy ...

Last night I watched
Emma with Gwyneth Paltrow

I would give it a 7.5, certainly worth watching for an Austen fan. It is true to the Austen story in many particulars, but not all. The characters of Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill are not developed as they ought to be, and many of the delightful maneuvers Frank and Emma make as they flirt and conspire are not shown. The movie suffers for this, for not bringing forth more of the story in the book. The mannerisms and machinations of Mrs Elliot are well done, but she can't go as far in the movie as she does in the book because of the way the Fairfax character is mishandled in the film.

Still, very watchable if you're fond of Jane Austen.

It focuses
Click to expand...

I thought it was a pretty good movie, even thought Gwyneth Paltrow was in it. I love all of Jane Austen's novels, so it appealed highly to me. Its not the best adapted, but I do agree that it was still a good movie.
 
Narnia_bookworm said:
I thought it was a pretty good movie, even thought Gwyneth Paltrow was in it. I love all of Jane Austen's novels, so it appealed highly to me. Its not the best adapted, but I do agree that it was still a good movie.
Click to expand...
My sentiments exactly! Well worth watching, especially for an Austen fan, but not as true to the book as I would have made it. I am currently watching a BBC mini-series of Sense and Sensibility; not the one with Alan Rickman, which is very good, but I think an older one with people I don't recognize. And it is fairly good, too, although they've made some changes to the story line. I will try to find out the year it was made if anyone is interested.
 
The Avengers (2012)

Good heavens, I feel like I just came off a rollercoaster! I've never been to a 3D film where I felt like I was being given a jolt of adrenaline about every 5 minutes.

I'll try not to get too spoiler-filled here, but if you're wondering whether or not it's worth the money, it's WORTH every dime! Not only were the effects/3D effects superb, the acting was actually really good! Where in the world were these actors' talents in their own films??? I'm not saying they weren't good in their own films, but I feel as if Avengers was their high point. Tom Hiddleston was BRILLIANT as Loki, and if you thought Loki was evil in Thor, well, it'll surprise you how bad he can be in this film.

I will admit: the movie is kind of dark. It's got a lot of violence. But very little language, and what language there is is relatively mild. Little sexual innuendo, even with Tony Stark (a character that practically shined like a knight in shining armor in the movie). I very rarely care about the atmosphere of the theater when I see a movie, but the atmosphere in the theater for this film was really unlike anything I've ever experienced before. People were pumped up and excited, cheering and screaming at various points in the film because the heroes did something amazing (I'm telling you, the moment the Hulk smashed a certain object in the film near the end, the crowd went absolutely W-I-L-D, which I've never experienced).

So, to sum up: 10/10. I very rarely give films 10 stars. The filmmaking of this movie was above average, and even though I liked Hunger Games: Avengers is going to blow it out of the water in sales.

GO SEE IT! :D
 
Apartment 143 Emergo

Worth the wait.

All filmed with advanced handheld cameras.

An apartment is haunted by a poltergeist and a young girl is the target.

Some people try to capture the poltergeist with advanced technology.

But the poltergeist assaults the family even at daylight, and there's a great use of silence before a sudden attack.

Recommended.

8/10
 
Ak thank you for the Avengers review. I can't wait to go! My husband just got home from a busines trip today, but I hope I can convince him to take me this weekend. Yay!

NB, was the Poltergeist film scary? I don't like anything to scary ...
 
inkspot said:
Ak thank you for the Avengers review. I can't wait to go! My husband just got home from a busines trip today, but I hope I can convince him to take me this weekend. Yay!

NB, was the Poltergeist film scary? I don't like anything to scary ...
Click to expand...

I think you will love it. The 3D was great, though at times a little disconcerting (I think it was partly due to the fact that my glasses kept going crooked on my face, lol), and some of the dialogue at the beginning/end was hard to understand, but otherwise the dialogue is clear and hilarious! I think I forgot to mention that the movie had a large amount of humor and was almost like a comedy/action-adventure film.
 
Avengers (2012)

Prominent Actors: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, and Tom Hiddleston

Intro: Going into this movie, literally into the movie theater, it was completely CROWDED, this only added to my anticipation of this movie. Starting off my neck was hurting , because I was literally in the third row from the front! This did not even dare to take ANYTHING away from the movie, though, once it started, because I got so interested I no longer cared.

Past this point, there will be spoilers.

Positive Elements: The main points it was strong on were First, Acting, The acting was a strong point of this film! I give the acting a 9-10 overall, because there was a tad of acting problems. Next, Storyline, I've probably said this a BILLION times, but I give Marvel and the directer HUGE credit for coming up with this whole "Avengers" thing. It will be historical. The Music, also pleasantly surprised me! I was thinking it would be good, and it was placed into the movie so perfectly! You'd randomly hear a theme, or some music, that would just FIT. CGI, or special affects were INSANELY good, just as amazing as Thor! I loved the Space scenes, or at least the flying scenes! My FAVORITE scene CGI wise was when Thor was on top of the tower, with the lightning! Humor, was captured perfectly! I was chuckling through the whole movie, and not only were the jokes funny, but really original! Lastly, the characters were AMAZING! Applause once again! I felt that Iron Man was the strongest actor, and I LOVED how they would film from inside his mask. Hulk was my second favorite!

Negative Elements: Hmmmmmmm, not to much, but being insanely picky: There were a couple of lame lines like when Hulk says, the secret is that I'm always angry, or something along those lines. I also felt a tad cheesiness in Thor's acting. Lastly, I didn't LOVE the filming style, and it wasn't bad, but there just wasn't anything GREAT unlike "The Hunger Games" was.

Summary: I came out of this movie STILL chuckling. Through the WHOLE movie, people were laughing and clapping, repeating the lines because of how funny they were! Really, this was the best movie I've seen for quite a while! This movie was SOLID. I've been debating between a 9 and 10, but I'll have to say 9. This movie wasn't perfect like "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe".

This movie easily deserved a 9-10
 
Last edited:
ahyperdude said:
Negative Elements: Hmmmmmmm, not to much, but being insanely picky: There were a couple of lame lines like when Hulk says, the secret is that I'm always angry, or something along those lines. I also felt a tad cheesiness in Thor's acting. Lastly, I didn't LOVE the filming style, and it wasn't bad, but there just wasn't anything GREAT unlike "The Hunger Games" was.
Click to expand...

I will make this remark about Thor's acting, because I've seen Chris Hemsworth in other things and he was actually fairly decent as an actor. Thor is a Norse god. The thing about these god-like creatures is: they're overly dramatic, speak like Shakespeare, and are regarded as rather silly by people of today. Loki might be a possible exception because he was so ridiculously evil in this movie. However, if you look at excerpts from, say, the Iliad, you will see that the gods act pretty similar to the gods in Thor. It's not poor or cheesy acting, it's a difference in culture and trying to portray these gods as being un-human. Unless I'm mistaken, Norse gods are relatively similar to the Greek and Roman gods; gods who cared nothing for humans except to use them for their own petty amusement (the Battle of Troy was basically a 'game' to the gods). The thing I liked about how the gods in Thor were portrayed is that they really could care less about Earth and the humans thereof (except of course Thor).

And I could really pick a bone about how there "wasn't anything great" unlike Hunger Games....because Avengers has made over $640 million worldwide in its FIRST WEEK, while THG has only made $380 million since March 23rd (if it was only "good" as THG was, how has it made so much money in 3 days?). In my opinion, Whedon's film was better made, better edited, and better overall than anything THG could have hoped to be. I didn't think it was possible, but Whedon even made Johansson look like a good actress. No, Avengers is probably not Academy Award material...but you can't deny: it's got substance, positive themes, enjoyable humor, and incredible action. And you're talking to someone who once swore I would never see a superhero film. Avengers made all its predecessors (Captain America, Thor, Iron Man/IM 2, Hulk, etc.) look like first grade art projects.
 
Aravis Kenobi said:
I will make this remark about Thor's acting, because I've seen Chris Hemsworth in other things and he was actually fairly decent as an actor. Thor is a Norse god. The thing about these god-like creatures is: they're overly dramatic, speak like Shakespeare, and are regarded as rather silly by people of today. Loki might be a possible exception because he was so ridiculously evil in this movie. However, if you look at excerpts from, say, the Iliad, you will see that the gods act pretty similar to the gods in Thor. It's not poor or cheesy acting, it's a difference in culture and trying to portray these gods as being un-human. Unless I'm mistaken, Norse gods are relatively similar to the Greek and Roman gods; gods who cared nothing for humans except to use them for their own petty amusement (the Battle of Troy was basically a 'game' to the gods). The thing I liked about how the gods in Thor were portrayed is that they really could care less about Earth and the humans thereof (except of course Thor).
Click to expand...

Good point! I don't know, his acting just seemed kind of inconsistent.

Aravis Kenobi said:
And I could really pick a bone about how there "wasn't anything great" unlike Hunger Games....because Avengers has made over $640 million worldwide in its FIRST WEEK, while THG has only made $380 million since March 23rd (if it was only "good" as THG was, how has it made so much money in 3 days?). In my opinion, Whedon's film was better made, better edited, and better overall than anything THG could have hoped to be. I didn't think it was possible, but Whedon even made Johansson look like a good actress. No, Avengers is probably not Academy Award material...but you can't deny: it's got substance, positive themes, enjoyable humor, and incredible action. And you're talking to someone who once swore I would never see a superhero film. Avengers made all its predecessors (Captain America, Thor, Iron Man/IM 2, Hulk, etc.) look like first grade art projects.
Click to expand...

I meant filming wise.. For example when Katiness was running through the woods after she got stung, the filming/effects they did there was AWESOME!

As for the avengers, I felt like the camera's were in the same spots as in every other movie and with very little effects..

As a whole, of course I liked the "Avengers" more then the Hunger Games.. I was just stating that the directing style/filming was better in the Hunger Games.
 
ahyperdude said:
Good point! I don't know, his acting just seemed kind of inconsistent.
Click to expand...
Inconsistent, perhaps, though I didn't get that feeling in this movie. Maybe it's because there was so much going on, I didn't really care.


I meant filming wise.. For example when Katiness was running through the woods after she got stung, the filming/effects they did there was AWESOME!

As for the avengers, I felt like the camera's were in the same spots as in every other movie and with very little effects..

As a whole, of course I liked the "Avengers" more then the Hunger Games.. I was just stating that the directing style/filming was better in the Hunger Games.
Click to expand...

Again, I really disagree here. There was no "shaking" camera effect, something I found really amateurish in THG (I can say the same for J.J. Abrams' extremely frequent use of a flashlight for Star Trek-2009). As for the effects...THG was rather sub par. If "shaking cameras" become the new and better effect(s), I will stick to subpar effects films like Avengers. I have recently discovered that shaking cameras make me kind of dizzy, though I hope this was mostly due to it being on such a large screen. Whedon is a better director and filmmaker than Gary Ross ever attempted at being, and Whedon I think would be a good choice to direct a THG film in the future if he can stick to the source material.
 
Aravis Kenobi said:
Again, I really disagree here. There was no "shaking" camera effect, something I found really amateurish in THG (I can say the same for J.J. Abrams' extremely frequent use of a flashlight for Star Trek-2009). As for the effects...THG was rather sub par. If "shaking cameras" become the new and better effect(s), I will stick to subpar effects films like Avengers. I have recently discovered that shaking cameras make me kind of dizzy, though I hope this was mostly due to it being on such a large screen. Whedon is a better director and filmmaker than Gary Ross ever attempted at being, and Whedon I think would be a good choice to direct a THG film in the future if he can stick to the source material.
Click to expand...

But you know for such an anticipated movie, that they could've done more.. It just felt boring

Immagine if you were Katiness running through the woods after being stung, I think you would feel dizzy.
 
Well yes, but the style was amateurish, just as Abrams' was. The secret to great films: fantastic cinematography. You don't see a shaking camera in Lord of the Rings, or flashlight effects in The Godfather. Most films lauded for their special effects are films that, surprise surprise, DON'T employ a shaking camera effect OR flashlight effects. They were "boring" and "routine" effects. Sorry, but I will always hold the opinion that Avengers was a much better made film than THG tried to be. And that does NOT come from the book purist in me, which was greatly disappointed in THG overall after reading the book. No. No, this opinion comes from somebody who was forced to study cinematography, lighting, effects, etc. in film class; and I honestly never thought it stuck until now. Guess that $300 was well spent after all. :p
 
Not to sound nitpicky or anything.

the "flashlight effect" is called a Lens Flare, but you probably already knew that.

(btw there are Lens Flares in a lot of movies: Indiana Jones, Close Encounters etc.)
 
ahyperdude said:
But you know for such an anticipated movie, that they could've done more.. It just felt boring

Immagine if you were Katiness running through the woods after being stung, I think you would feel dizzy.
Click to expand...

I haven't watched either movie, and frankly, I have no desire to, nor interest in either one. But I can say this -- there are means of depicting dizziness that do not include violent camera shaking to the point that some viewers were getting sick. To me, that speaks more of a lack of originality and innovation into displaying dizziness and more of taking the easy way out. Sometimes the more respected and tested conventions of movie production actually actually are that way for a reason. Messing with them may be more exciting, but certainly there are other and more effective means of bringing excitement to the movie.
 
Faleel said:
Not to sound nitpicky or anything.

the "flashlight effect" is called a Lens Flare, but you probably already knew that.

(btw there are Lens Flares in a lot of movies: Indiana Jones, Close Encounters etc.)
Click to expand...

In every frame of EVERY scene? I doubt it. If it's occasional, I don't mind it. But Abrams' effect is in every shot, every frame, every scene, every minute of the 2.5 hour film. It gets old after about 20 minutes.
 
Sopespian said:


I haven't watched either movie, and frankly, I have no desire to, nor interest in either one. But I can say this -- there are means of depicting dizziness that do not include violent camera shaking to the point that some viewers were getting sick. To me, that speaks more of a lack of originality and innovation into displaying dizziness and more of taking the easy way out. Sometimes the more respected and tested conventions of movie production actually actually are that way for a reason. Messing with them may be more exciting, but certainly there are other and more effective means of bringing excitement to the movie.
Click to expand...

Yes! I mean, look at Vertigo. Good gosh, there are moments in that film that will make you literally dizzy, WITHOUT any movement of the camera. Much as I dislike Hitchcock films, his effects in that film were ridiculously effective, without any shaking. He had the ability to convey Scottie's vertigo effectively and in original ways. Vertigo (the condition, not the film) is a feeling of dizziness, to put it simply.
 
Back
Top